As not much has happened in the past hour, I’m going to close the blog by republishing my colleague Andrew Sparrow’s excellent snap analysis for those who missed it an hour or so ago. Thanks and goodnight.
If Sir Bill Cash is to be believed, MPs have tonight voted to begin a process that will lead to a “constitutional revolution”. (See 10.59am.) It is impossible to predict quite where this will end up, but Cash’s claim seem hyperbolic.
MPs have voted to have more votes on Brexit. Wednesday’s will be the ninth big Brexit debate this year, and the first where supposedly the Commons is “taking back control”. Sir Oliver Letwin wants MPs to vote on paper, not in the division lobbies, on a wide range of Brexit options. But there are many reasons why this might not have quite the dramatic impact Cash fears. Here are six.
1) MPs have not yet been promised free votes on all, or even some, of the measures, but unless that happens the voting could end up just being a re-run of what has happened in normal votes on Brexit amendments. Some government ministers have said there is no point having indicative votes without giving MPs a free vote, but Theresa May sounds less keen. Speaking for Labour, Sir Keir Starmer implied this afternoon that Labour MPs would get free votes on some propositions but not others.
2) There is no guarantee yet that there will be a majority for any plan - although Letwin may opt for a voting system that eliminates unpopular options until one is left as the winner.
3) The government would not be obliged to accept any plan deemed most popular with MPs, and in fact May strongly hinted this afternoon that she would reject what many expect might emerge as the most widely-supported idea - staying in a customs union with the EU. (See 5.32pm.) Motions passed by the Commons are not binding on the government, and it is very hard for the legislature to force a PM to do something she does not want to do.
4) MPs may well use Wednesday’s debate to pass another motion freeing up more time for indicative votes at a later stage. In other words, the process could become self-perpetuating. This would worry ministers much more, particularly if it led to MPs trying to free up time to allow the Commons to pass legislation. But that could lead to ministers seeking a way of trying to retaliate to sabotage the Letwin process.
5) It is not obvious that all options will be on the ballot anyway.Interestingly one of the most high-profile supporters of a second referendum, Owen Smith, said in the debate this plan should be excluded at this stage. (See 9.19pm.)
6) The prospect of MPs trying to push May towards a softer Brexit could possibly help her, by persuading Tory Brexiters to back her plan in a vote on Thursday to prevent Brexit being watered down. There is no guarantee that this will happen, but it is not impossible.
My colleagues Heather Stewart, Jessica Elgot and Rowena Mason have written a superb analysis of tonight’s events.
Here an excerpt:
Controlling the parliamentary timetable is usually a key power of the sitting government, but MPs have been drawing up plans to step in after May repeatedly declined to change course, despite her deal being roundly rejected on two occasions.
Defending the move, the Tory rebel Dominic Grieve said parliament had been “prevented from doing its ordinary job” by the “straitjacket” imposed by the government.
“Seeing that the government has run into the sand, and has had its deal rejected, we have got to find an alternative,” he said. “There should be nothing that is forbidden to be discussed.”
Commenting on tonight’s votes in the Commons and the resignations of three ministers, Guto Bebb MP, leading supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, said:
The scale of the Government’s defeat and the principled resignations of ministers Richard Harrington, Alistair Burt and Steve Brine tonight are more nails in the coffin of a Brexit deal that very few in the country or Parliament have ever wanted. The Prime Minister has now lost control of this process. What is needed now in this national emergency is not more posturing or playing roulette with people’s lives but to give Parliament the time and space needed to work out what Brexit means, as well as begin preparing for important democratic elections to the European Parliament. When it becomes clear that any form of Brexit will let down everyone - no matter how they voted in 2016 - MPs will decide the only way out of this crisis is to hand the final decision back to the British people.
While some see a parliamentary revolution in tonight’s passing of the Letwin amendment, others are more concerned about the potentially now more likely prospect of a general election, now that the Government has lost even more control, and MPs in favour of a soft Brexit or a second referendum will have a day on the decks next Wednesday.
The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg seems convinced that this is now increasingly possible, and writes:
Tonight could be the official start of a journey to a softer Brexit led by a majority in Parliament, Brexiteers beginning to back down in earnest, or the start of the next stage of a standoff between the government and Parliament that could only end with a ‘democratic event’ - code in Whitehall for what you and me would normally call an election.
Full story below.
Henry Newman, director of Open Europe, seems to agree.
Evening everyone, I’m taking over from my colleague Andrew Sparrow and will be rounding up some reactions to this zinger of a night in the Commons.
Insults were hurled, birthday songs were sung and a whole host of things did not quite go as planned - in particular for Ed Vaizey MP, who apparently got his amendments confused.
MPs vote to begin 'indicative votes' on Brexit - Snap analysis
Andrew Sparrow
If Sir Bill Cash is to be believed, MPs have tonight voted to begin a process that will lead to a “constitutional revolution”. (See 10.59am.) It is impossible to predict quite where this will end up, but Cash’s claim seem hyperbolic.
MPs have voted to have more votes on Brexit. Wednesday’s will be the ninth big Brexit debate this year, and the first where supposedly the Commons is “taking back control”. Sir Oliver Letwin wants MPs to vote on paper, not in the division lobbies, on a wide range of Brexit options. But there are many reasons why this might not have quite the dramatic impact Cash fears. Here are six.
1) MPs have not yet been promised free votes on all, or even some, of the measures, but unless that happens the voting could end up just being a re-run of what has happened in normal votes on Brexit amendments. Some government ministers have said there is no point having indicative votes without giving MPs a free vote, but Theresa May sounds less keen. Speaking for Labour, Sir Keir Starmer implied this afternoon that Labour MPs would get free votes on some propositions but not others.
2) There is no guarantee yet that there will be a majority for any plan - although Letwin may opt for a voting system that eliminates unpopular options until one is left as the winner.
3) The government would not be obliged to accept any plan deemed most popular with MPs, and in fact May strongly hinted this afternoon that she would reject what many expect might emerge as the most widely-supported idea - staying in a customs union with the EU. (See 5.32pm.) Motions passed by the Commons are not binding on the government, and it is very hard for the legislature to force a PM to do something she does not want to do.
4) MPs may well use Wednesday’s debate to pass another motion freeing up more time for indicative votes at a later stage. In other words, the process could become self-perpetuating. This would worry ministers much more, particularly if it led to MPs trying to free up time to allow the Commons to pass legislation. But that could lead to ministers seeking a way of trying to retaliate to sabotage the Letwin process.
5) It is not obvious that all options will be on the ballot anyway. Interestingly one of the most high-profile supporters of a second referendum, Owen Smith, said in the debate this plan should be excluded at this stage. (See 9.19pm.)
6) The prospect of MPs trying to push May towards a softer Brexit could possibly help her, by persuading Tory Brexiters to back her plan in a vote on Thursday to prevent Brexit being watered down. There is no guarantee that this will happen, but it is not impossible.
Here is the full text of what Jeremy Corbyn said in his point of order a moment ago.
Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate the house for taking control.
The government’s approach has been an abject failure and this house must now find a solution.
So I pay tribute to [Oliver Letwin and Hilary Benn] and others, who have worked to achieve tonight’s result.
The government must take this process seriously. We do not know what the house will decide on Wednesday. But I know there are many members of this house who have been working for alternative solutions, and we must debate those to find a consensus.
And this house must also consider whether any deal should be put to the people for a confirmatory vote.
Where this government has failed, this house must, and I believe will, succeed.
The Tory Brexiter Sir Bill Cash says that what has been agreed by the Commons is “a constitutional revolution” and that the house will will live to regret it.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion